Legal Opinion
Stampf v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 2, 2008PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The motion court properly determined that the action against the LIRR was timely commenced. There is no requirement that a notice of claim be served upon LIRR, a subsidiary of the MTA (see Public Authorities Law § 1276 [6]), and the detailed letter sent to the LIRR by petitioner’s former attorney constituted the requisite demand on the LIRR (see Public Authorities Law § 1276 [1]), and tolled the one-year statute of limitations, giving petitioner up to one year and 30 days after her claim accrued to serve her complaint against it (see Burgess v Long Is. R.R. Auth., 79 NY2d 777 [1991]; CPLR 204…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burgess v. Long Island Railroad AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Montez v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Ndemenoh v. City Univ. of N.Y. (CUNY)-City Coll.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Harris v. Town of Islip Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2011
- Matter of Rijos v. New York City Tr. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- Rodriguez v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2022